(PC) Williams v. Ogbuehi

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00855
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERRY WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00855-JLT-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE BILL OF COSTS 13 v. (Doc. 108) 14 CLEMENT OGBUEHI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ bill of costs. (Doc. 108.) For 19 the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim 22 against Defendants, licensed medical professionals employed at the prison where Plaintiff is 23 incarcerated. (Doc. 12 at 8.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment 24 rights through deliberate indifference by refusing to treat his Hepatitis C virus, which developed 25 into cirrhosis of the liver. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff’s case was initially dismissed for failure to state a 26 claim, (Doc. 18), then appealed to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. 20), where the district court’s decision 27 was reversed and remanded, (Doc. 24). The parties filed cross summary judgment motions, 28 (Docs. 74, 89), and the court subsequently granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 1 while denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 102). Defendants submitted a bill 2 of costs, (Doc. 104), which Plaintiff now moves to strike, (Doc. 108).1 3 III. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Costs are awarded to the prevailing party in civil actions as a matter of course absent 5 express statutory provision, “unless the court otherwise directs.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). The rule 6 creates a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties; the losing party must show why 7 costs should not be awarded. Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944–45 (9th Cir. 8 2003). “Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial public importance of 9 the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future 10 similar actions, (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity 11 between the parties.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 12 2014). This list is not “exhaustive . . . of good reasons for declining to award costs, but rather a 13 starting point for analysis.” Id. at 1248 (citation and internation quotation marks omitted). A 14 district court must “‘specify reasons’ for its refusal to tax costs to the losing party,” however, the 15 court need not specify reasons for its “decision to abide the presumption and tax costs to the 16 losing party.” Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 945 (quoting Assoc. of Mexican-Am. Educators v. 17 California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000)) (emphasis in original). 18 IV. DISCUSSION 19 Defendants seek costs in the amount of $633.40 for printed and electronically recorded 20 transcripts, exhibits, additional hours, and processing and remote video conferencing from 21 Plaintiff’s deposition. (Doc. 104-1 at 2.) Plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy or 22 reasonableness of this amount. (See generally Doc. 108.) Rather, Plaintiff argues that the Court 23 should not assess these costs against Plaintiff because: (1) a significant economic disparity exists 24 between the parties, especially given Plaintiff’s financial resources, and (2) that taxing Plaintiff 25 1 Defendant urges this Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion because it was untimely. (Doc. 110 at 2.) “The party against 26 whom costs are claimed may, within seven (7) days from date of service, file specific objections to claimed items with a statement of grounds for objection.” Local Rule 292(c). Defendants filed the bill of costs on June 10, 2024, 27 (Doc. 104), Plaintiff filed his motion to strike on June 26, 2024, (Doc. 108), and Defendants filed a notice of errata with the memorandum of support for the bill of costs on July 3, 2024, (Doc. 109). Because federal courts have very 28 wide discretion when interpreting their local rules, see Lance, Inc. v. Dewco Services, Inc., 422 F.3d 778, 784 (9th 1 would likely have a chilling effect on future civil rights litigation from similarly situated 2 prisoners. (Doc. 108 at 2.) Plaintiff asserts that under Association of Mexican-American 3 Educators, this Court should exercise its discretion to deny costs. (Id.) The Court agrees. 4 “[A] court abuses its discretion when it awards costs against a losing plaintiff without 5 considering the plaintiff’s limited financial resources.” Vaughn v. Wegman, No. 1:15-CV-01902- 6 LJO-JLT, 2019 WL 1283931, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2019). Though in forma pauperis 7 plaintiffs are not automatically exempted from paying costs, the amount of costs sought by the 8 defendant is weighed against the financial resources of the plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. 9 § 1915(f)(2)(A) (“Proceedings in forma pauperis . . . . If the judgment against a prisoner includes 10 the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of 11 the costs ordered.”); Meeks v. Parsons, 2010 WL 2867847, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010). 12 Plaintiff here is an inmate making merely $0.22 per hour, proceeding in forma pauperis, which 13 undoubtedly qualifies as limited financial resources. See Vaughn, 2019 WL 1283931, at *2; see 14 also Sewell v. Cornwell, No. 2:18-CV-02988-JAM-DBP, 2021 WL 663715, at *2 (“[T]he 15 economic disparity between the parties—a prisoner and a state entity—is about as great as one 16 might envision.”). (Doc. 108 at 2.) 17 Plaintiff also alleges that an award of costs here would have a chilling effect on future 18 actions by “deter[ing] future medical claims against the Defendants and CDCR Official[s].” 19 (Doc. 108 at 3.) Though the Court is “what some may call ‘inundated’ with similar cases filed 20 under section 1983 by indigent inmates, the potential chilling effect of being taxed with costs 21 upon defeat cannot be ignored in cases such as these.” Vaughn, 2019 WL 1283931, at *2 22 (quoting Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1088–89 (9th Cir. 2016)); see also Meeks, 2010 WL 23 2867847, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) (denying the defendant’s motion to recover costs, in part 24 because “an award has the potential to chill meritorious civil rights actions”). An award of 25 $633.40 against an imprisoned plaintiff may have a chilling effect on future civil rights litigants. 26 The Ninth Circuit has indicated that civil rights cases concerning the Eighth Amendment 27 are of substantial public importance to protecting the rights and safety of prisoners. Draper v. 28 Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Staggs v. Doctor’s Hospital of Manteca, 1 | No. 2:11-CV-00414-DJC-CSK, 2024 WL 4785141, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2024). Finally, 2 | though the Defense motion for summary judgment was granted, the claims did raise 3 | fact-dependent issues concerning whether Plaintiff should be prescribed Harvoni, a costly 4 | anti-viral drug. Though the factual analysis ultimately undertaken was not particularly close, the 5 | allegations were deemed non-frivolous by the Ninth Circuit. (See Docs. 24, 26.) Thus, the Court 6 | GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to strike the bill of costs. 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the reasons set forth above: 9 1. Plaintiffs motion to strike the bill of costs is GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. D Dated: _ January 14, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28